That seems to be the question coming to the fore these days as someone has finally made a convincing argument for paying now in order having to pay outrageously later. Arguments that implementing emissions cuts would damage the economy don't fly so well in the face of knowing that the economy would be damaged in the future anyway. It also, I think, helps make a case for increased investment in alternative energy technology since if that industry can boom through the chaos it would be much better than having to invest after the face. From EurActive:

Researchers at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University (United States) say that trillions of dollars of damage could be avoided by the end of the century if resolute action is taken now to reduce global warming.

Meanwhile, other research carried out for oil major Shell for the first time quantified the potential size of the market for businesses that propose technologies or services to combat climate change.

A study commissioned by environmental group Friends of the Earth and published on 13 October looks at the potential costs and benefits of warmer weather around the globe. The Tufts study, "Climate change - the costs of inaction", says possible benefits of global warming such as increased agricultural yields will quickly be offset by the costs of extreme weather events - droughts, floods, powerful storms, heat waves.

"The effects of variable and extreme weather events are bad for everyone, North and South - and outweigh any potential benefits," the researchers write. "Beyond 2° Celsius, all regions will suffer from the worsening average effects of climate change."

In other climate/energy news ...

*Google pushes solar initiative in California.

*Ford and BP open hydrogen station in Michigan.

*From Stolen Moments in Island Time: Zen and the Environment

*From GreenPages, Sustainable Development in the 21st Century.